St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-03-08

| this court upon the grounds that the
charge made against him is not sufficient to
justify his detention. The judges in the cir
| cult court were divided in opinion MS to the
| following questions: First, whether a con-
spiracy which resulted in the expulsion of
| the Chinese from Nicolaus in the manner set
! forth i'm the record is an otfense in violation
| of section 55l9, revised statutes, and If so
! whether that section as applied to such a
| state of facts is constitutional; second
whether the acts charged against Baldwin
and his fellow conspirators constitute an Of
| Tense within the meaning of section 550S re-
vised statutes and II so whether that section
| is constitutional; third, whether the acts so
| performed constitute an offense within the
| meaning of the clause of section $685.. Revised
| statutes, which makes ii an offense for per-
sons TO conspire "by force TO prevent
hinder or delay the execution Of
laws of the United States.' and il Sc, whether
| that section Is constitutional. This court, in
a long and elaborate opinion by Chief Justice
| Waite, holds that the United States undoubt-
| eddy has power to provide for the punishment
OF those who are guilty Of deprivins Chinese
subjects of any OF the rights, privileges, i'm
munitieS or exemptions guaranteed to them
by the law. Whether that power has been ex-
ercised or not must be ascertaiued by exam
ination of the statutes upon which the charge
is based, VIZ. Revised Statutes. sections 55l9,
550S and 1886. Section 55l9, which WAS the
one most considered in the court, below pro-
any state or territory conspire for the pur-
pose OF depriving either directly or indirectly
any person or classes of persons of the equal
protection of the laws or of equal privileges
or immonities under the laws" In United
States VS.. Harris (l06 United States 629) it
was decided that this section was unconstitu-
uonal, as provision for the
PUNISHMENT OF CoNsPIRACIEs
of the character therein mentionedi in state
1t is urged. however, that this section, although
unconstitutional if applied to the facts set
forth in the Harris case Is not so when APP
piled to the facts OF this case, because the
persons conspired against in the former in
stance were citizens, while In the latter they
were aliens entitled to protection under a
treaty. In support of this argument reliance
is had on the we'll settled rule that Il statute
may be in part constitutional, and that under
some circumstances the part which is consti-
tntional will be enforced, and only that which
is unconstitutional rejected. To give effect,
to this rule, however, the part which is
constitutional and that which is unconStitu-
tional, must be capable of selection so>that
each may be placed by itself. This statute
is not of that character. and the limitation
which is sought must be made. if at all, by
construction, not by separation. This, it has
often been decided is not enough 1t is clear
i'll the opinion of the court that section 55l9
cannot be sustained in whole or in part in its
operation within a state unless United States
VS.. Harris is overruled, and that the court sees
no reason for AS for section 550S it was
held to be- constitutional in eXparte Var
borough, Q1OE Limited States, 651), and the only
question 10 be decided is whether what is
charged to have been done by Baldwin con-
StituteS an otfense within the meaning of its
provisions In the opinion of the court the
word '.ciiizenS,'' as used in this statute must
be given the same IN gaming it has in the four
teenth amendment OF the constitution, and
that to constitute the offense which is there
fi,nx hnI dom
who is 'cltizen" in that sense. 1t therefore
does not apply to Chinese aliens. With re-
gard to Baldwin's liability under section
1886 the court holds that
THE FORCE USED BY HIM
was exerted against the Chinese people and
not against the government in it's efforts to
protect them. His conspiracy was to ill-treat
the Chinese and not to hinder or delay the
| United States in the execution of any meas
ures to prevent such ill treatment. After re-
| viewing carefully in the light of previous
| questions raised by the case, the court re-
verses the judgment Of the court below,
which denied the prisoners protection for re-
| lease on habeas corpus and remauds the case
| for further proceedings, Justices Field and
| Harlan dissented. Justice Field read a sep
arate opinion agreeing with the majority of
the court in its different sections of the re-
| vised statutes, except as to the second clause
| of section 1886.
| The court also rendered decision in the
| case of Ferdinand Hopt, indicted in the dis
| trict court of the Third judicial district of
| Utah, in December. $780, for the murder of
| John F. Turner, on the Sd of the preceding
| July. He has been four times convicted in
that court upon this Indictment of murder in
the first degree and the judgment of death
pronounced against him was three times re-
versed by this court. The case came here the
fourth time on Il writ of error involving
technicalities relating to the rulings of the
| lower court, the admission of evidence, the
instruction to the jury and the reference dur
ing the argument by the district attorney to
previous trials of the case. The judgment of
the lower court is now affirmed.
No. ll00. The United States plaintiff
against Ramon Arizona; from the suit court
of the United States for the Southern district
of New York. Arizona was
INDICTED FOR CoUNTERFEITING
in this country the securities of the state
| bank of Bolivia. The question involved in
the case is the conStitutionality of the law of
congress making the forgery of the securities
OF foreign governments Il criminal ofense
This court sustalns the constitutionalty of
| the law and answers the certified questions of
| the court below IN the affirmative.
| Nos. 6S and 213 Roswell G. Holston ct al.
trustees, and the Hannibal g. ST. Joseph Rail-
road company, appellants, VS.. Thomas L.
Crittenden, governor, ct al, fund commis-
| siOnerS Of the state of Missouri: appeal and
cross appeal from the United States circuit
court of the Western district of Missouri.
This was suit in equity brought by RoS-
well G. Holston, Heman Dowd and Orrn
Root, Jr., trustees in mortgage made by the
Hannibal & st. Joseph Railroad company, q
Missouri corporation to restrain the execu-
tive officers of Missouri from selling the
mortgaged property under prior statute
mortgages in favor Of the state on the ground
! that the liabilities for which the earlier liens
were created had been satisfied, and that they
as trustees had become entitled to an as
signmeEt thereof. The decree of the circuit
COURTS reversed so far as 1t fixed the amount
to be paid to get assignment of the lien is
concerned, and the cause remanded with in
structiou to strike out the sum of S476,049
with interest from May II, 1888, as the amount
found, bvt insert In lieu thereof 1888, 646 and
interest at the rate of per cent per annum
from Oct. s. 1892. In all other respects the
decree is affirmed, each party to pay its own
counsel in the court, the expenses of print
ing the record and the fees Of the clerk for
supervision to be taxed one-half to each.
| ADDITIONAL, MINNEAPOLIS NEWS